Supreme Court Issues Notice In 4PM Editor's Plea Against Blocking Of Youtube Channel
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition filed by senior journalist Sanjay Sharma, Editor of the digital news platform '4PM', challenging the blocking of his YouTube channel by the Central Government on grounds of “national security” and “public order.”
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of Sharma and urged the Court to consider interim relief due to the complete denial of access to the channel without any formal order or reasons provided to the petitioner.
“I want the blocking order to be removed. The channel is blocked and I have no reason—only what the intermediary has informed me,” Sibal submitted.
Justice Gavai remarked that the matter would be tagged with the pending plea filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, which also challenges provisions of the Information Technology (Blocking) Rules, 2009.
However, Sibal contended that the two cases were distinguishable since Jaising’s matter does not involve the blocking of a news channel. He pressed for immediate hearing, stating, “Ex-facie it is unconstitutional.”
Sibal argued, "Your Lordships may have it immediately, otherwise vacations will come."
Justice Gavai assured that the Court will function through partial vacation sittings and three benches will sit every week during the summer break.
The Bench issued notice to the respondents and granted liberty to the petitioner to serve Respondents 1 and 2 (Union of India and Ministry of Home Affairs), while allowing dasti for Respondent 3 (YouTube).
The matter has been listed for hearing next week.
About the PIL
In his writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, Sharma contended that the action was carried out arbitrarily and in violation of statutory and constitutional safeguards. He alleged that the blocking was executed by YouTube, acting as an intermediary, pursuant to undisclosed directions from the Union Government, without furnishing any copy of the blocking order or the underlying complaint. The channel, which has over 73 lakh subscribers, has been rendered inaccessible without any notice or opportunity of hearing.
The petition filed through Advocates Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Talha Abdul Rahman, and M Shaz Khan, invoked the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, wherein Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was upheld only on the basis that it incorporated procedural safeguards. Sharma argued that the blocking in his case violates the very safeguards that form the bedrock of the Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal.
Challenging Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, the petitioner asserts that the Rules are ultra vires both the parent statute and the Constitution. He contends that the Rules permit secretive blocking without any hearing, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution. Rule 16, in particular, which provides for confidentiality of blocking orders, is said to subvert procedural fairness and the right to judicial review.
Case Title: Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 465/2025; Diary No. 23539/2025]